Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

RedEaredSlider writes "Fish in the Hudson River and the harbor in New Bedford, Mass., have evolved resistance to PCBs. In the Hudson, a species of tomcod has evolved a way for a very specific protein to simply not bind to PCBs, nearly eliminating the toxicity. In New Bedford, the Atlantic killifish has proteins that bind to the toxin (just as they do in mammals) but the fish aren't affected despite high levels of PCBs in their cells. Why the killifish survive is a mystery."

Single-celled organisms are generally a lot more flexible when it comes to environmental stress than multi-cellular organisms are, and among the latter, plants are generally more flexible than animals. Observing this kind of adaptation in animals is pretty impressive. Nobody expects life to stop adapting to the environment, but there are limits; e.g., humans aren't going to evolve resistance to being shot in the head, no matter how many times it happens.

There is also the case of the Freshwater Sardinella [wikipedia.org] that evolved from seawater sardines that were caught in Lake Taal, after the Mount Taal volcano erupted in the 18th century and closed the direct connection with the sea. Rainwater pushed out the saltwater, but some Sardines survived the transition.

Evolution doesn't take millions of years. (Although, admittedly, the longer the time span the more impressive the results - including those that are impressively resistant to change.)

Humans have evolved a resistance to being shot in the head, it's just not a simple mechanical/physiological resistance.

It's called society.

And yes, I understand that's not what you meant - but my point is more to illustrate that coping strategies, patterns of behavior, and one might even suggest meta organizations like societies are just as clearly evolved (I very deliberately use that word) to reduce the likelihood of random violence, or at least an individual's susceptibility thereto.

If I remember the statistics correctly, only about 1 in 3 shots to the head result in penetration of the skull.( Yeah, Hollywood got it wrong, but what do you expect from a group that shows nearly every car crash catching on fire and exploding, as well as guns firing about 10-20 times their full load without ever reloading or having a scene cut where you can imagine they reloaded...)Along with that, few of the people shot are hit in the head in the first place, most shooters are lucky to hit the main body

You left out "secular" The American education system describes "secular" as God-hating amoral atheists who hate all people who beleive in God, and strangely self-identifies as "secular" as well (though the non-secular groups, especially in the South, do get into local board power level and deliberately sabotage the federal and state mandates for minimum education, claiming that teaching logic and other things that might confuse students about God is anti-religion, and thus unconstitutional). And they dese

Life on earth has been adapting and evolving to its environment for billions of years. Why would anyone think it would stop?

Most often, because evolution also says we are one of its byproduct, and while we can look at ourselves and say "Hell yeah! Evolution!", the moment we go outside we're like "what the sh** f*** happened to everybody else?"

"Kill" is Dutch for "creek", so they're basically "creek-fish". The northeastern US is also home to the town of Fishkill, NY and the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania. (Yes, that's pronounced "school-kill". The locals, though, are more apt to refer to the Schuylkill Expressway as the "Sure-kill Distressway".)

You think the robber barons responsible for the pollution eat anything fished out of the Hudson? Fat chance. If the toxins do work their way up the food chain, it'll be the peasant class that suffers for it.

You think the robber barons responsible for the pollution eat anything fished out of the Hudson? Fat chance. If the toxins do work their way up the food chain, it'll be the peasant class that suffers for it.

Yes, but our Overlords will suffer when we perish and aren't around for them to exploit anymore.

We should eat these fish just to spite them. Quick, before they outlaw it!

If we ignore humans for a second, the next link in the food chain will either develop PCB resistance or learn not to eat that species. And then, the fish may use this poison actively as a defense mechanism.Oh evolution, you are cool!

Yep it sure is - Now can some what explain to me why the F*ck 40% of a supposed advanced nation still deny it's existence ?

Or do we wait for a time were either their god sends them a sign that they should believe in it or there is some subtle change in the chance of their offspring surviving such that they eventually die off - though then we won't get the satisfaction of telling them they were wrong.

Now can some what explain to me why the F*ck 40% of a supposed advanced nation still deny it's existence?

Religion offers an easy way to become immortal. Science promises nothing of the sort, and atheists must be comfortable knowing that their death is final and there is no afterlife. See Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org].

Even though a single evolutionary change can mean the difference between living and dying I would think it also effect everything else, especially when it has to do with metabolism. In this case the fishs' genes have found a local maxima, so to say, that makes them resistant to PCB; nobody knows what evolutionary possibilities they've sacrificed and what it does to them in the long run.

It says a lot about PCB distribution and signal strength if multiple species have evolved responses over sub-century time frames.

It was convenient while it lasted for the fish who ingested our industrial waste stream to grow carbuncles and remove themselves from the human menu by simple visual inspection. But I guess we're heading back to the days where the host takes a brave first bite, and all the guests applaud if dinner proceeds. We'll all be double checking the Russian royal penumbra to ensure our host doesn't carry any midichlorians of Rasputin lineage.

Canaries in the coal mine all the way up the food chain. Tag, you're it.

Up until now, it was easy to spot fish that was loaded to the gills with toxic chemicals, because they had weird growths. Now they have evolved resistances, you can't spot them by visual inspection anymore so it will be easier to insert toxic fish into the foodchain. We then return to the times were, if you had a dinner, the host was required to take a bite to show that nothing was poisonous. But for people who are genetically linked to people with a famous resistance to poison, like Rasputin, this may not even cause them to blink - so you also need to check whether your host is a descendant from Rasputin or other likely resistant folk (Borgia family would be candidates:)).

So basically, we had early warning signals from fish but now *we* have become the early warning signals (canaries in the coalmine) - and if we live, the food may be safe. Hurray for dumping chemicals in the water.

...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes. If it can be demonstrated that not a single one of them had that trait previously, then that would be interesting, to be sure,

If so, all they need to accept now is the fact that random gene mutations happen, and they'll accept evolution as actually happening. The starting point and the origin may be still debatable, but I dare say that it's hard for creationists to deny actual evolution happening on this planet as we speak, and in the past.

There is no need at all to prove "mutations are good". All it takes is a single dominant mutation that benefits the species and causes members of that species to be more succesfull *in their habitat*. Even if 10000000000 mutations are bad, none of them matter if one is beneficial because *that* mutation will be the one that will carry forward. If you want to dispute this, *you* have to prove that *no* mutation can *ever* be good in *any* environment. And that hypothesis has been falsified for a long time no

...you refer to selection as evolution. Selection is well understood, and pretty much everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the most outspoken evolutionist will agree on the fact that when a species is faced with an unavoidable situation in which most of them will be killed off, only those that exhibit traits allowing them to survive will persist to pass on their genes

And everyone from the most fundamental creationist to the least fundamental creationist will continue to deny reality long after anyone who isn't a member of their cult accepts it.

Evolution isn't something that magically allows plants and animals to adapt to a specific set of circumstances, that is an entirely random process. This mutation probably happened decades or centuries ago (or possibly even *due* to the PCBs, which would be ironic but difficult to prove) and has now, as you've said, been brought to prominence because all the fish without it have died off due to the high levels of PCBs in the water.

The fish *have* evolved immunity to the toxic sludge, but it's not a causative statement and hopefully wasn't intended as such.

All genes have tons of variants, and these variants had to be introduced into the population at some time. Evolution doesn't need to for traits to be introduced due to environmental pressures in order to work; they are introduced at random by mutations. So whether the trait was introduced before or after the dumping of PCBs began really isn't that interesting as it is just a matter of chance, and doesn't prove anything about evolution. The interesting part is that it occurred at all.

Selection, operating on any given population (in the absence of a continuous source of fresh genetic diversity in the form of, say, random mutation), will tend to reduce the genetic diversity of the population in response to any given environmental stress. Given time and successive random environmental stresses, this will tend to drive the population to extinction.

Unless of course God sits in the background, manually fucking with his designs to make them work.

That's referring to the idea of "microevolution", which they later define further down the page, and which is, itself, a bit of a misnomer since it merely refers to adaptation and selection. I'll repeat again: it's an overstatement to refer to selection as "evolution". It's a mechanic of it, but it is not it.

I didn't hear anything about proving or disproving anything in the parent post. It is in all likelihood a jab at creationists as a shown example of an organism exhibiting traits of evolution for a very specific purpose. Also, for the record, while it is true that the idea of creation doesn't preclude the notion of the ability to adapt. Most creationists are firm deniers of evolution, and the parent post was in all probability a jab at them.

There are also plenty of creationists who will firmly state that individual species don't change and adapt: God created all animals to be the way that they are, forever. Inconveniently for them, we have observed speciation happening. [wired.com]

The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.

To the hardcore evolutionists, all creationists get lumped together. It doesn't matter if their stance is "I don't think the big bang was an accident" or "the Bible says the Earth is 4000 years old, so that's how old the Earth is". You're a superstitious and mentally deficient nutjob who is at best to be ignored and at worst should be sterilized and exiled.

The converse also occurs. To a fundamentalist creationist, anyone ranging from "I could see how evolution might account for certain things" to "evolution is the correct and only possible explanation" is a godless empty shell of a human who at best should be shunned and at worst should be burned at the stake.

Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.

It's been my experience that fights are not between scientists and zealots; they are between zealots and other zealots.

Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.

There's just two problems with that one:

1. There's enough evidence for evolution that it must be mostly correct2. If evolution is flawed, it won't result in concessions towards the creationist stance

For instance, take Newton. Yes, he wasn't entirely correct. But what he figured out, in the conditions he tested it in, worked. That Newton wasn't 100% correct didn't suddenly mean that the reality was any more aligned with the view of Aristotle.

The same way, the argument isn't about whether evolution exists. That got figured out long ago, even before scientists figured out how genetics work. The current arguments are all about the details of it. That the current understanding isn't 100% correct isn't going to suddenly mean that the creationist stance is right, it's just going to mean that some of the details weren't entirely correct, like exactly how some features evolved, how important different mechanisms are, and so on.

2. If evolution is flawed, it won't result in concessions towards the creationist stance

I'm confused by this statement. How do you possibly know this, other than by assertion you're psychic as to the future determinations of science? You wouldn't consider a biological structure that -could not- come into existence apart from design, due to the probability of the aggregate mutations required while retaining survivability, to be a "concession"?

I'm confused by this statement. How do you possibly know this, other than by assertion you're psychic as to the future determinations of science? You wouldn't consider a biological structure that -could not- come int o existence apart from design, due to the probability of the aggregate mutations required while retaining survivability, to be a "concession"?

Because as formulated, that's not scientific. It's not enough to just make a statement "X was designed", there must be some testable consequence of that,

Agreeing with you 100%, I note that the world is full of people who don't understand Karl Popper. They do not understand the difference between falsifying an hypothesis (Popper) and falsifying a theory.

Falsifying the Newtonian (implied) hypothesis that spacetime was flat merely added a correction term into the Newtonian laws of motion. Falsifying the theory of phlogiston was a major first step to modern chemistry. The GP is confused as to the difference. Nobody bothers to try to "disprove" Newtonian mechani

"It doesn't matter if their stance is "I don't think the big bang was an accident" "

Frankly, that's a strawman. You're essentially saying all those who believe in evolution are atheists, which is demonstrably false. If you went to an evolutionary biology conference and said "I believe God created the Big Bang, and once life arose, evolution kicked in" most would have no problem with that and would not qualify you as a "creationist."

If you went to an evolutionary biology conference and said "I believe God created the Big Bang, and once life arose, evolution kicked in" most would have no problem with that and would not qualify you as a "creationist."

Sure it would. You're still claiming that God was involved in creating the universe. I don't see how you can claim that and NOT be a creationist. And a theist.

Creation versus evolution is one of those cases of pseudoscience where the unscientific side (the creationists, if I must spell it out) claims that they want to "compromise" between the two sides by claiming that each side can account for some things, or that each side has a certain amount of faith, or "we have no way to be sure about creation, but we have no way to be sure about evolution either". Almost any time someone says this it's a case where the science a

The problem here is that any argument (I hesitate to call it debate or even discussion) involving evolution vs creation is that it immediately degrades into an "us" vs "them" fight.

Well, yes, humans have an instinct to be tribal, and humans may act in a tribal way around any social disagreement that is large enough to partition society.

Modern science is built around the idea that you can never actually prove a theory, only disprove it and build a better theory. When you stop trying to disprove your models and accept them as truth, you stop being a scientist and step into the realm of faith.

Here you seem to be adopting the standard anti-science argument - that since "science can't prove anything", then we should accept all hypothesis as equally valid. And that is the problem. All hypotheses are not equally valid. The entire fields of modern genetics and molecular biology is built around the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution i

No kidding. This along with many experimental models prove that everything evolves, including bacterial colonies. And now proof that complex organisms can spontaneously evolve, I wonder how the 6,000 year old earthers will respond.

Have you heard that microevolution != macroevolution? Well, now you have! It would not do to imply that an all-powerful, all-knowing being needs not play with their creation like an ADD toddler playing with their ant farm.

An all-powerful, all-knowing being would create perfect beings with free will at the very beginning unless he was some kind of psychopath. Else, he is not all-powerful or not all-knowing. And also there is no difference between micro and macroevolution, or what barrier is there for macroevolution?

Minor point of conflict: you cannot have a universe that contains both:1. at least one all-knowing entity and2. at least one other entity which has free will.

The propositions conflict with one another.

By definition, the future actions of an entity with free will cannot be known. By definition, an all-knowing entity knows the future actions of all entities. Hence, a contradiction exists, and both propositions cannot be true. This is a fairly common form [wikipedia.org] of logical disproof.

I don't hate your freedom of speech, you vicious vile repugnant soulless coward, I hate your speech. I really do hope your death is horrific by the standards of any culture in our species' history, and as you linger in mind-destroying agony, the only human being that comforts you as you beg for your life to end is black.

Example 1 is evolution, and is probably far more frequent than Example 2 -- you're just missing the fact that evolution starts before Sol even increases its ouput.

In times of relative stability, a lot of mutations happen and they all survive because the species is still generally well-adapted to their environment, even if some adaptations have minor disadvantages. Then an environmental change happens, and suddenly the minor disadvantage is a major advantage and the adaptation spreads throughout the populat

Evolution is essentially the same thing as survival of the fittest followed by passing its traits on to the offspring because it enabled the fittest to reproduce more or live long enough to reproduce... and over time, the offspring with that trait will begin outnumber other members of its species without the trait because they have a better chance of survival. Also, spontaneous evolution is an oxymoron.

No, you are missing one clear step. Mutations must be introduced for there to be sufficient genetic variation to "evolve." Without mutation, there would be little variation and something that would kill off some would kill off all. Evolution requires mutation. Survival of the fittest doesn't. Mutation is one of the issues people argue about. We were created in God's image. So, are we in God's image now, or 10,000 years ago, before mutations? Or are mutations not happening and science is wrong and we

Basically the fish are an example of mutations and natural selection. The damage genes in the fish make it better suited to it's environment but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish. But you dont get published without towing the line of Evolution.
Notice how the mutations are limited to the Hudson area. The fish are less fit than the wild fish in the oceans.

How do you think evolution produces different species? You have the same species in 2 different areas. The conditions change in one area or favor certain traits over others. Eventually, the animals in that area evolve into a different species. You cannot say that one species is weaker that the other. What you claim to be the "stronger"fish would not survive in the Hudson, while these "weaker" ones can. Each one is stronger than the other in their respective environments.

These mutations dont show evolution (things breaking dont show "Goo to you via zoo" evolution)

Who are you to say it is broken? If anything, it would be the ones who don't change that are broken, because they die without the adaptation. It is letting them survive in an area that other things can't. By definition, that would be working, not breaking. If a mutation gives rise to a new population that is identifiably different from another species, that is evolution. The classic example is the finches. Different species of finches evolved with different beak structures that best fit their environm

After the first event, the "wolf" was no longer a wolf. You might want to think about that for a bit, because YOU don't understand the phrase "clade mutation event" and what it implies. A clade is a branch. A clade mutation event means the branch mutated.

What exactly doesn't complexity have to do with this? And fitness is a measure within an environment. The environment in this case are these bodies of water with high levels of PCBs. Your post is so fucking muddled, as typical of Creationist bullshit, that you can't even keep the point straight. What does "weakness" have to do with complexity? What is complexity in this situation?

but it doesn't show it getting more complex, actually the opposite, a weaker fish

Evolution doesn't work by producing ever-more complex examples. Case in point - cats. The domestic cat brain loses 2/3 of its brain cells during it's early growth - they simply aren't needed for its' environmental niche, and a waste of resources, so the cats that pruned back on brain cells were able to survive on less food, etc.

Adders Tongue has 1200 chromosomes. Guess that makes them more complex than humans.

If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.

Excellent. We're going to put all of you at the bottom of the Hudson river where you can munch on PCBs and other fun substances. In a couple of million years you might get back on land.

If fish can do it, then it should be no problem for humans. You left wing environmentalists lose again. We Conservatives can pollute and know there is nothing wrong with it. Again, more evidence promoting the Conservative lifestyle.

Or the toxic sludge caused enough mutations, some of which included an immunity to that same toxic sludge. You certainly don't need to have fish that had a pre-existing immunity. Every copy of every animal has a certain number of mutations - humans have, on average, 60 per person. Increase the environmental stressors (radiation, pollutants, etc) and that number is going to go up.